This is an application filed by the second accused in Crime No.1106/2014 of Anchal police station for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that the present petitioner along with first accused had sent some provoking messages intended to be sent to the Prime Minister causing hatredness and public tranquility in a threatening language and thereby, they have committed the offence punishable under Sections 66(A), 67 of Information Technology Act and Section 153(A) of Indian Penal Code.
3. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he is innocent of the same and he has been implicated in the case at the instance of the first accused. Further, the allegations are not sufficient to attract the offence under Section 153(A) of Indian Penal Code. His custodial interrogation is also not required.
4. The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation has to be conducted and for which his presence is required.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. It is seen from the records that on 04.08.2014, one Umesh Babu, the complainant in this case informed the Anchal Police that one Rajesh Kumar by using his Face book account spread hatred comments abusing the Prime Minister of the nation and the nationality using obscene language and this is likely to create communal tension in the nation and on that basis, Anchal police registered Crime No.1106/2014 under Section 153(A) of Indian Penal Code and Section 66(A) & 67 of Information Technology Act against the said Rajesh and when he was arrested, it was revealed that it was sent by the present petitioner. Accordingly, the present petitioner was also implicated. It is seen that the first accused was arrested and he was later released on bail. Considering the nature of the allegations and the manner in which the offence was committed, this court feels that it is not a fit case to invoke the power under Section 4389 of Code of Criminal Procedure to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Further, the presence of the petitioner may be required for proper investigation as well. So, the petitioner is not entitled to get anticipatory bail.
But, this will not prevent the petitioner from surrendering before the investigating officer and on such surrender, if the investigating officer feels that his arrest is required recording his arrest and produce him before the concerned magistrate court without delay and on such production, if any bail application filed by the petitioner, the magistrate considering the bail application and passing appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law.
So, the application is liable to be rejected.
In the result, the application is rejected with the above observation.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge